The Problem With Legalizing Marijuana

As a criminal defense attorney, I have represented many, many people accused of smoking marijuana.  Most thought it was a harmless activity which brought momentary pleasure.

Be that as it may, I would tell them, it is also illegal and thus its use entailed the risk of harmful consequences in court.  Consider finding your pleasure, I would suggest, in lawful pursuits.

Of course, some continued to ignore the law’s proscriptions, but others mended their ways.  And that, after all, was the law’s objective. 

The premise of drug laws is that the use of intoxicants should be discouraged.  Such drugs are bad for society since users are less likely to be contributing members in a number of ways.

So if deterrence is a worthwhile accomplishment, laws making marijuana illegal work.  We’re not talking about stunning success here.  Plainly, many people smoke “weed” in jurisdictions where its use remains against the law. 

But I have no doubt that legalizing marijuana will surely increase the numbers using it.  Members of society who might have partaken, but for its illegality, will no longer be deterred.

Well, so what?  Is marijuana worse than tobacco or alcohol?  According to research, no and yes.  Apparently it’s not as addictive.  But it’s also a gateway to more damaging drugs like heroin and cocaine.  That’s not to say that the marijuana smoker will inevitably turn into a heroin addict, but there is a significant risk.  [There is also considerable evidence that pot smoking in young adolescents and young adults is harmful to their still-developing brains.] 

Libertarians contend, understandably, that adults have the right   to live by their choices.  Alcohol and cigarettes pose serious health problems.  And they are legal.  But traditional conservatives, certainly not antagonistic to liberty, ask if expanding the pool of people engaging in potentially dangerous activities is good for society as a whole?

Why Do Forty Percent Still Back Obama?

Is it premature to call Barack Obama a failed president?  Perhaps.  But it certainly seems fair to term him as such to date.

Apparently, judging by a variety of polls, about 40% think he’s doing just fine.

How can they think that in the face of domestic embarrassments like Obamacare, VA Hospitals and IRS scandals as well as foreign policies and actions which are a mixture of debacles and disasters?  Think Syrian red lines, Iran’s nuclear program, Russian re-set, Ukrainian dismemberment, North Korean defiance and, most recently, Iraq’s sectarian disintegration with Afghanistan on the verge of failure.

Part of the President’s support is easy to explain.  Twelve percent of America is black and about eighty-percent are still in his corner (ten percent who backed him in 2012 have since come to their senses).  Racial loyalty is understandable.  For the others, party loyalty must be the answer.  Thirty percent of Americans are self-identified Democrats.  Blind support from that group is less understandable.  Fine, a person can support the president because he is a fellow Democrat and/or he likes liberals.

 

But can you also fairly say that you approve of his job performance (as about forty percent of Americans say) in light of his dismal record?  What exactly in his job performance is approved of?

The political reality is that only one-third of us have our support “up for grabs”.  Democrats at thirty percent (including most black voters) and Republicans at twenty-five percent are usually “precommitted”.  Independents, including all political persuasions, are about thirty-five percent.  The remaining ten percent evidently don’t care or know the name of the president.

 

Given these facts, it is obvious why presidential elections are focused on a relatively small slice of the electorate.  Those in the middle are the only votes really in play.  Further, these facts explain why campaign efforts also focus heavily on getting one’s base to the polls.  They needn’t be convinced to support their party’s candidate, but their enthusiasm does matter in motivating them to vote.

Considering Obama’s dismal performance, there is reasonable hope that although the Democrats have a forty-percent floor on their support, the ceiling may be decidedly below fifty percent in 2016.

Children Crossing America’s Border – What’s To Be Done?

First things first.  Stop the influx. 

American law designed to protect the victims of sex trafficking is apparently expansive enough to cover any foreign alien (except for Mexicans and Canadians) who is a minor and is on U.S. soil (regardless of how the child got here).  So, apparently, it’s not legally possible to return them without “due process”, which means a hearing, and that will take time, probably a lot of it.

Plainly, the border is not secure (prior Administration claims to the contrary have been proven ludicrous).

Yes, the massive influx of illegal aliens has generated a great need to provide care for the children.  We are Americans, the most generous – humanitarian – people in the world.  We will provide it.  But it cannot be without end.

Satisfying short term needs cannot serve as a substitute for long-term policy.  Even generosity must have its limits.  The ability of a nation of three hundred and fifteen million to serve the needs of a world’s population of seven billion can hardly be infinite, despite the wish of some that reality were otherwise.

We must improve security, so money must be spent on fences, guards, etc.  But there’s more to be done that doesn’t involve billions in expenditures.

U.S. officials need to be clear and loud in declaring that America will not be receptive to others seeking to join the alien children already here.  Those present will be treated according to our law.  We will do all that we can – including changing the law – to keep illegals out.

Let the word go out across Central America (the main source of our border overload) that the U.S. will no longer be a safe haven for illegals trying to escape problems at home.  Those who ignore the message must be advised that they will lose the costs of traveling north and risk their lives for nothing if they try.

What choice do we have?

Our immigration system, now so dysfunctional, was supposed to insure an orderly absorption of immigrants into our nation for the mutual benefit of the new residents and the American people.  America is in indeed a land of opportunity and immigrants – and still proud to be such.

But borders do matter.  We have a right as a nation to determine who joins us.  If such were not so, anyone (good and bad) would be free to enter.  We’d also soon become the orphanage of the world (as the U.S. is rapidly becoming for Central America).  Could collapse and national bankruptcy be far behind?

America would then be rendered helpless to aid anyone.

Hillary Clinton is a Repressed Comic?

Hillary Clinton, the supposed presumptive Democratic Party presidential nominee in 2016, has a comedic side heretofore unnoticed.  Last month, in an interview intended to promote her new book, she said that after Bill Clinton left office in 2009, her family was “dead broke” when they left the White House and that they had struggled to pay mortgages on their two homes [each valued at more than a million dollars].  Somehow, she managed to deliver this humorous line while maintaining a straight face.

Clinton haters, of course, claimed she was serious.  Sean Hannity and Laura Ingram, for instance, of Fox News fame, were sputtering in their outrage.  Lighten up people!  Of course, she was kidding.

She knew that her husband was going to receive a presidential pension of    $191,000 which should have mitigated the loss of his presidential salary of     $200,000.  There was no doubt that he’d be able to command speaking fees of many thousands of dollars per speech.  Everyone knew that. 

But even some liberals didn’t catch the joke

.

Jeremy Peters, a political correspondent for the New York Times, took her seriously and reacted defensively.  He suggested that Hillary may have displayed a tin ear when she was comparing her financial circumstances to the less affluent 99%, but her comments shouldn’t be equated with Mitt Romney’s 2012 gaffes.  After all, he pointed out, unlike the last GOP nominee, Hilary supports policies which aid the poor.

TheTimes writer didn’t specify but he was probably referring to such liberal policies as minimum wage increases (which depress employment among the poor) and welfare policies (which foster dependence on government handouts). 

On reflection, maybe Jeremy Peters has a sense of humor, too.